Veli etal: I agree with your unhappiness over the phrase " Developed countries don't want to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes)". However I took this fourth sentence in Ms Buck's second bullet (responding to Michael) a different way. I took it be part of the problem as seen by the developing countries. Of course like many perceptions, there is some partial truth in the statement. I believe there is general agreement that President Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe (where I have spent a half year) has been especially corrupt.
I believe that more activity on Biochar is taking place in developing countries than developed - and I believe more in Africa (the least developed continent) than any other continent. I think the point of Ms. Buck's short response to us was to say that there are Geoengineering technologies (ie Biochar) that we CAN use to break out of this dichotomy on "uneven development" - the point of this bullet response.. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Veli Albert Kallio" <[email protected]> To: "holly jean buck" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Cc: "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:27:37 AM Subject: RE: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC I oppose vehemently the statement: " Developed countries don't want to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes)" This has "holier-than-thou" attitude and is only to harden polarisation and opposition of GE in developing world. After all, what is the definition of corruption? Could one define all unsustainable development, immoral and hence corrupt. Sounds like the climate-skeptic elements in the US Christian coalition who blame all the problems on too many abortions being allowed. Never mind world's overpopulation, limits and diminishing land based natural resources. Are the US on higher ground or the EU. Nope. Until they show that they can "develop" their economies with sustainable energy supply and responsible use of mineral resources. Also much of the pollution is sourced to China as the goods produced there with lower labour cost are then shipped across world to Europe rather than producing less consumables locally with higher wages (hence less purchasing power and sales volumes). Geoengineering needs to be seen as one element in a toolbox of solutions to climate change, not as an elixair that solves everything. Social engineering, reforestation, etc. play their solutions as well. Kr, Albert Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:05:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Hi Michael, Thanks for all your useful comments; there is a lot I want to address about them. • Michael writes: "I would also like to comment on your statement; "I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't." . Holly, that is social engineering....not GE!" Yes, it's true that there is some social engineering involved... but I think the Anthropocene challenges the Cartesian nature / society divide for many people. We have changed our atmospheric composition due to patterns that are very much social and cultural: it's not just burning of hydrocarbons or cutting of biomass that created 394 ppm. It's love for the open road, jet-set glamour, dietary patterns, corrupt regimes that allow illegal logging, aspirations of the Chinese middle class, whatever. All of these sociocultural factors have helped lead us to this juncture. More explicitly on-point to this thread: people who vociferously oppose geoengineering believe geoengineering to be a social project with nefarious social aims, and they don't see the natural / social divide in the way a scientist might. They are problematizing global warming differently. And it can be difficult to have a conversation between two parties who have a different conceptualization of exactly what problem they're trying to address. So any "PR" strategy would do well to speak to the "problematization problem", I think. • Michael also writes that "the original core of the GE concept is not so broad that "uneven development" even shows up on the radar." This is of course true; I mention uneven development because this is what prevents us from making process with the UNFCCC process. To briefly frame the situation: many developing countries see the developed world as having developed with use of their resources, at their expense under colonialism, and with the benefit of fossil fuels. They think they are entitled to a "fair" allowance of catch-up emissions and that developed countries should pay for what they've already emitted. Developed countries don't want to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes) and they are heavily invested in existing fossil fuel structures. This development dilemma, because it is what keeps us from just going and cutting emissions, is the dilemma that causes the need for geoengineering. So let's entertain a thought-experiment: what if it was possible that geoengineering could actually contribute to solving this dilemma? • This brings me to Michael's excellent question: "How can any GE concept address the social issues you are attaching to the evaluation criteria? This is perhaps easier to see with strategies like afforestation techniques, biochar, etc.: it's possible to introduce an implementation design that could be combined with development mechanisms so that developing countries, or even communities, could be financially rewarded for undertaking them and benefit from them, and have their land use and energy situations improved. I mean, this is already a part of the UNFCCC process. It's not just CDR techniques that could potentially address the social development dilemma, but also reflective crop varieties and grasslands (especially if combined with ecological restoration of degraded lands). Or see Michael's recent post on diatoms: " This GE approach offers at least two non global warming mitigation related benefits to society. First would be the overall water quality improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the micro level." Fishery improvement has all kinds of social benefits. Your phrase "general regional ecological enhancement" is really key: regional ecological enhancements are often social enhancements, especially when applied with the intention to be so. Clearly, a lot of potential social solutions aren't inherent in the technologies, but in their implementation. But because the research process is entangled with the implementation of the technologies, I do think scientists can keep in mind how their research would be scaled-up or deployed, and play a role in it. (For example, the Internet had many influences and funders in its nascency-- DARPA, CERN, NSF, etc.-- but its structure, and even its social role, might be different if Tim Berners-Lee had patented hypertext. Not a perfect example, but the evolution of every tech, from pharma to farming, has some social impact and story.) I know I haven't fleshed out any of these ideas at much, but I am writing a longer paper on this topic. Final note on PR: Michael, you proposed a website some posts back about a PR organization. My humble two cents, if you or others go through with this, would be to abandon the term PR-- it's too ideologically loaded already-- and rather discuss "outreach." And use it for genuine outreach, networking internationally with young & old scientists and civil society out there. Great way to touch base with the intergenerational issue. I'm so glad you mentioned graphics, too: images, design, and feel are so important. Best to go beyond the sci-fi diagrams and the ubiquitous rendering of the ocean spray ship; include images with people and plants and water in them, of scientists actively discussing and working out ideas and talking to the publics. May seem obvious, but in the hundreds of articles I analyzed on geoengineering, none had images like this. Also, crowdsourcing from all the inventors, climate geeks, environmentalists, and people who have too much free time on the net is key to making it work. I would work with educators, esp. on funding sources, as this could easily fit in with science education, and everybody loves education. Kind regards, Holly On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Michael Hayes < [email protected] > wrote: Hi Folks, Holly, I read your media assessment paper and found it a pleasure to see such thought put into the subject. The concept of GE is in need of this type of insight now and for sometime to come. Your paper can be viewed as a good indicator as to how well the message is being reieved. I think GE is failing on the PR subject. Yet, that is understandable as it has need championed by fewer people than I had at my last BBQ..I believe the bildungsroman of GE can be as positive as you point out and I also believe the final chapter of the book will be a tribute to humanities ability to survive their own follies. I would also like to comment on your statement; " I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't." . Holly, that is social engineering....not GE! I think that type of all-inclusive thought path is one of the major issues of contention in this first chapter of the GE story. Societal issues are a necessary part of the GE equation as any rational person interested in this field wants to do the greatest good for the greatest number. However, the original core of the GE concept is not so broad that " uneven development" even shows up on the radar. The original GE concept is an emergency procedure...a last ditch hope for humanity. That is a highly worthy cause on its own. How can any GE concept address the social issues you are attaching to the evaluation criteria? I was glad to see you pointed out that ETC et al. can not represent civil society as there is little knowledge to make informed comments or evaluations. That assumption of leading status by ETC is what I found as being truly objectionable. I do hope you find the time to re-evaluate the media trends over the years so history can have a clear view of the how this story plays out in the media. Thanks for your work. Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/wUJzn7RMwZIJ . To post to this group, send email to [email protected] . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
